I

LETTER

THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D,D.
IN reference to
CERTAIN CHARGES AGAINST THE
GERMAN CHURCH,
contained in his letter to his grace the archbishop or
CANTERBURY.

BY THE

Rev. H. ABEKEN, Theol. Lie,
CHAPLAIN TO HIS PRUSSIAN MAJESTrS LEGATION AT ROME.

LONDON :
JOHN W. PARKER, WEST STRAND.

HARRTSON AND CO., PRINTERS,
ST. MARTIN'S UNE,

A LETTER.

Reverend Sir,
It must appear very bold and presumptuous
for a stranger, without name or authority, to venture
to address a person generally and justly held in such
high estimation as you are ; yet, if a deep and sincere
feeling of respect would make me timid and hesitating,
the confidence which that very respect must inspire,
leads me to look for nothing but kindness and indul
gence from you. And the dutiful affection and pious
veneration which you feel towards your National
Church as your own immediate spiritual mother, will,
I am sure, lead you to sympathize with the son of
another branch of the Church Catholic, who comes
forth to raise his voice, feeble as it may be, on behalf
of his spiritual mother, and to vindicate her claim to
that sacred name. You will sympathize with him,
and feel for him, although his voice should be raised
against you ; yea, I trust you would wish him to suc
ceed, if it were possible, in persuading you. For I
know that what you have said against the German
Church, you cannot have said without a painful feel
ing. You will admit also that no German can read it
without pain. If you were grieved because you be
lieved such to be the truth, we must be grieved to find
stated and believed of our Church what we know not
to be true, and to see a sister Church there-through in
danger of being alienated and estranged from us at
the very moment that we called upon her, not to accept
B 2

anything from us, nor to exchange anything with us,
nor even to impart anything to us, but simply to come
forward and act in common with us for the extension
of the kingdom of heaven. At such a moment it is
of the highest importance that the two Churches should
fully understand and appreciate each other ; and it was
no doubt for this reason that you felt it a duty to put
before your countrymen what you believed to be the
character of our Church. It is for this same reason
that I feel it my duty solemnly to protest against the
character thus ascribed to her. I am fully persuaded
that no one has a- stronger desire than you have for the
real and effectual reunion of all parts of the Church,
and that no one could be farther from wilfully putting
any obstacles between your branch of it and ours ; but
you believe such obstacles to exist, and to be almost
irremoveable. Now I believe these obstacles to con
sist merely in misapprehensions and erroneous impres
sions, which ought to be removed as speedily as pos
sible ; but which your recent publication, — I say it
with pain, — is calculated to corroborate and propagate.
It is to be hoped that the defence of our Church will
be undertaken by abler hands than mine ; but little as
I feel myself qualified in every other respect, yet in
my accidental presence in this country at the time of
the publication of your letter to His Grace the Arch
bishop of Canterbury, I cannot but see an imperious
call upon myself to do what, perhaps, my countrymen,
being far away, and consequently not so much aware
of the influence of your words, might neglect to do
namely, to address to your countrymen, at the present
moment, a few words that might help them better to
understand the character and spirit of our Church, and
might vindicate her, in the eyes of some at least,
against the many charges contained in that letter.

I do not pretend to speak with authority ; I fully
agree with you that no individual clergyman has a
right to do so, and am desirous only to follow your
example in what you have from the beginning pro
claimed to be your intention in all your labours ;
namely, to bear ivitness to the spirit which the children of
the Church imbibe in her. And I address my remarks
to you, because I cannot suppose any one to lend a
more willing ear to what I shall have to say. It is
not so long since you showed, in your Historical
Enquiry into the probable Causes of the. Rationalist Cha
racter lately predominant in the Theology of Germany,
a deep and heartfelt sympathy with our German
Church, and an equally just and charitable apprecia
tion of her peculiar position, and the advantages as
well as dangers resulting from the spirit of freedom
and inquiry predominating in her. This book at the
same time evinces so perfect a knowledge of her his
tory, and the struggles she has had to go through, that
I can hardly hope to say much that might be new to
you ; yet in the detail of your recent charges against
us, I trust I shall be able to correct some mistakes as
to matters of fact ; and as to the general spirit and
character of our Church, since your view and account
of it must of necessity be under the influence of your
general opinions and principles, I cannot but think
that your countrymen will, for this very reason, not be
unwilling to listen to a member of that Church giving
his view and account of it ; — this is all that I presume
to do. It is equally right and natural that I should care
fully abstain from any remarks upon that part of your
letter which has reference to your own Church. It is
not for me to judge of the position you assign to her ;
it is for the Venerable prelates within her to do so

6
authoritatively; it is, I conceive, for every individual
English Christian to ask himself whether this be the
spirit that he feels to breathe through the Church
within which he lives. But I, of course, have no right
either to question or to approve it. Nor shall I enter
upon any doctrinal subject, whatever may be its gene
ral importance, even beyond its connexion with the
present controversies in this country, with a view to
discuss it; argumentation could hardly lead to any
result, standing as we do, in many respects, on such
different ground.
It is for the same reason that I shall not enter
into any discussion about the rightfulness and use
fulness, or the position, of the bishopric at Jeru
salem, although I gladly acknowledge that I hail it
joyfully as the first-fruits and the pledge of a most
cordial union of sister branches of the Church Catho
lic. I hope and trust that most of my countrymen
share my feelings about it ; we have had time and
opportunity enough to learn, that the strongest tie and
truest bond of union is, to act together for good.
This however supposes, as I beg leave to remark in
passing, that you mistake the views of the prelates to
whose zeal and wisdom the erection of the bishopric
is owing, when you say (page 129), "To this," (the one
English branch of the Church Catholic,) " I conclude
that your Grace hopes that the Prussian congregations
will, if indulged in ihe use of their own services for
awhile, gradually assimilate themselves, and become
one with it." If such a suspicion could gain ground
among Germans, they should feel it their duty not
only themselves to abstain from all connexion and
communication with that bishopric, but also to warn
all their brethren against such an attempt at inveigling
them into the English branch of the Church ", and I

should think you must feel yourself, upon reflection,
that little good could come of such — forgive the word
—cheating and deceiving ! But I have far too high
a respect for the truly venerable prelate whom you
address, and who has acted throughout with equal can
dour and wisdom, to have the slightest fear or sus
picion about this point. The unqualified sanction'
given by the Bishop of London in his own and the
Primate's name to the truly Catholic views of National
Churches* so ably developed by the Rev. F. D. Mau
rice*, prove sufficiently that both those venerable
prelates fully acknowledge the claims of German con
gregations to retain national peculiarities, (when sanc
tified by the Church,) as long as they remain Germans ;
and that their wish is not to make Germans English,
but to make Germans and Englishmen work together
in the service of* God, praising God in different tongues,
but " holding the faith in the unity of the Spirit and
in the bond of peace." And I have no doubt that the
Bishop at Jerusalem himself will be animated by the
same spirit; he will respect the nationality of the
German members of his diocese, and respect them
precisely for adhering to the inheritance of their fathers.
And I have no doubt, again, that on their side they
will certainly acknowledge him as a bishop to all
intents and purposes ; and I see no reason why you
should, somewhat tauntingly, ascribe to him " pre
sidency rather than government," (p. 116.) As he
will not exact of them anything inconsistent with
their principles either as Christians or as Germans, so
they will yield him all due obedience, just as they
would to their own ecclesiastical or spiritual autho
rities at home. And they will look upon this, not as
* See The Light of the World, a Sermon, &c, &c, by C. J.
Lord Bishop of London, p. 24, note 17»

8
a concession made to the English Church, but as the
natural consequence of the position of the Jerusalem
diocese. They will obey him, not as an Englishman,
but as an officer of the one Church of Christ, to which
Germany, and England, and Jerusalem, equally belong.
When, after this digression about the new bishop
ric, I return to the subject proposed to myself, I must,
before I can enter upon it, protest at the very outset
against the name you give us. Accepting or allowing
this name of "the Lutheran body," (p. 121,) would,
indeed, at once place us in the wrong, and prove the
existence of an undue influence of human authority
among us ; but the name is so utterly misapplied in
this instance to the ecclesiastical body concerned in
the erection of the bishopric, and brought into contact
with the Church of England, that not only this body
itself does not claim the name ef " Lutheran," but
that those who have a right to this name, strongly
oppose it, on the ground of its not being " Lutheran."
These are those followers of Luther's doctrine about
the eucharist, who thought themselves thereby pre
cluded from joining, according to the principles of our
union, in worship and prayer with Calvinists, and
whom the King of Prussia, anxious not to interfere
with the religious liberty of any of his subjects, has, by
recent measures, allowed to form themselves into an
organized body. These may be called " the Lutheran
body," but it is not likely that they will send candi
dates or congregations to Jerusalem ; it is consequently
not with that body that the Church of England will
come into contact, but with the established or national
Church of Prussia, which calls itself The United Evan
gelic Church of Prussia, partly in order to exclude by
this very name any idea of human authority; partly
because the professed and acknowledged name of Ger-

9
man Protestants has always been "The Evangelic
Body," (Corpus Evangelicorum.) For it is not of late
only that our Church has repudiated a name derived
from ever so great a man ; this man himself protested
in the strongest terms against the assumption of such
a name ; and the ecclesiastical bodies that owe to him
their reformation, have always disclaimed it when
obtruded upon them by their opponents. They have
called themselves, according to the varieties introduced
by the unhappy divisions of the sixteenth century,
either "Adherents of the Augsburg Confession," or
" Reformed Churches ;" but have always comprised
each other collectively, and acted together under the
common name of the Evangelic body. This evangelic
body has a right to the name of the " German Church,"
just as those parts of it, which are united under the
Prussian sceptre, have to the name of the " National
Prussian Church." It is with reference to the latter,
as the more immediately concerned, that I wish my
remarks to be understood principally ; but I do not
mean to exclude other Protestant German bodies, what
ever name may have formerly been given them ; and I
can the less hesitate to comprise them all under the
sacred and endearing name of the German Church, as
I am therein supported by your own authority ; for I
find that, in the above-mentioned book, you speak
throughout of the " German Church" as of one com
prehensive communion.
At the time then when you wrote that book, you
did not yet refuse us the name of a Church; that,
from altered views, you should feel obliged to do so now,
I am the less inclined to object to or argue against, as
I do not attach so much importance to an acknow
ledgment from without as you seem to do. The
claims of any body of men to be a Church, or a part

10
of the Church* do not rest upon such acknowledg
ment, bnt upon internal evidence. Not the being
rejected, but the rejecting only, can prove anything
against a particular Church. I am glad, however, to
find, that your Church does not take the same view of
the subject which you do now ; and that its highest
representatives, whatever they may think of our more
or less perfect constitution, yet freely allow us, in their
authoritative publications, the name of a Church ; and
that on this point they have with them even those
English bishops and divines of former days that take
the very highest Church-ground, no one can be better
aware of than yourself. Satisfied with this, I shall
not argue with you about this sacred name, but trust
to the just and charitable feelings of English Chris
tians, that, so far from being offended at my using it,
they will joyfully go along with me and their bishops.
Of this Church, then, I wish first to vindicate the
catholicity, and then to show her peculiar position as
based upon this catholicity; this seems a necessary
preparation to a detailed answer to your charges against
her doctrine and practice.
The apprehensions with which you look upon any
communications between your Church and ours, are
founded upon the supposed character of our Church ;
and I own that if she were animated by that wilful,
sectarian spirit which you ascribe to her, if she did
thus wantonly boast of schism and separation, well
might your countrymen then share your fears and
beware of any contact with her. You are unwilling
(p. 121) to confuse her with the heretics of the East;
yet you characterize her as uncaiholic, and even
opposed to catholicity, glorying in divisions and sepa
rations ; and you imply that she stands upon the same
ground with sects and heresies, namely, that of wilful

11
separation and secession from the Church, and forma
tion of a new, exclusive communion, in consequence
of peculiar and individual views of some particular
doctrine or tenet. That this is not so historically, I
trust you will readily admit from your knowledge of
our Reformation. You must be well aware, that at
that time we neither wished to separate, nor did
actually separate ourselves from the communion of
any Church, but that those bodies, which effected
within themselves a reformation claimed in vain for
the whole Church Catholic, were refused communion
by other parts of the German Church, which, from
various motives, clung to Rome and her doctrines and
practices. In that respect your Church has been
more fortunate, carrying the whole nation along with
her. From the general desire for a reformation there
was at first much hope that the whole German nation
would have united in this holy work, and thereby
have remained one undivided German Church, pre
serving within herself a complete organization, and
able to develope in peace that spiritual and national
liberty which is as well an essential characteristic of
the Church as unity and universality is. It is deeply
to be lamented that such was not the case ; much evil
and suffering would then have been spared our Church
and nation. But what was the cause of the breach of
union at that time ? and who bears the guilt of that
unhappy division ? Not certainly, as some would have
it, Luther or his friends, from going in a sectarian
spirit beyond the acknowledged want of a reformation,
or from developing principles inconsistent with Church
unity ; but, as far as the guilt of it is to be ascribed to
persons, the Pope and his legates, who, by their in
trigues, disseminated mistrust and discord among the
estates of the Empire, and not only prevented the

12
bishops from acting as it would have become ministers
of the Church, but did not hesitate to seduce secular
princes from the common cause by sacrificing and
abandoning to them the liberties, rights, and interests
of the bishops and local Churches in their dominions.
Thus Rome has ever been willing to assist the secular
power in breaking down the liberties of National
Churches, provided that power would let Rome have a
share in the spoil ! And thus such German bodies as
would not abandon the Gospel, were forced to become,
from Evangelics, as they called themselves, Protestants ;
protesting, not against ecclesiastical authority, nor
even, in the first instance, against the Church of Rome
and her abuses and errors, (for it is well known,
although often forgotten, that the origin of the name
has nothing whatever to do with any protest against
ecclesiastical authority,) but against the decrees of a
secular assembly, which would impose upon them laws
incompatible with their duties towards God and His
word, viz., against the diet of Spire, 1529. And,
from that unhappy period, Germany has been di
vided*; owing to these divisions and the struggles
and disturbances consequent upon them, the tranquil
developement of the principles of the Reformation
Mas impeded, and internal dissensions took up the
time and powers of minds from which the Church
might have derived the most signal benefits. But is
this chargeable upon us, or upon our forefathers, or
upon Luther ? upon him, to whom no one has borne
* The history of the at first united efforts to bring on a refor
mation, the manner in which they were baffled, and the ways
through which a division was wrought among the German estates,
with all its unhappy consequences, has nowhere been more accu
rately and fully exhibited than in Ranke's History of Germany at the
period of the Reformation, a book, it seems, not yet sufficiently
known in this country.

13
a more brilliant testimony than yourself, saying of
him* : —
" The fruitless attempts to satisfy an uneasy and
active conscience by the meritorious performances of
a Romish convent had opened his eyes to the right
understanding of Scripture, in whose doctrines alone
it could find rest ; and the clear and discerning faith
which this correspondence of Scripture w7ith his own
experience strengthened in him, gave him that intui
tive insight into the nature of Christianity, which
enabled him for the most part unfailingly to discrimi
nate between essentials and non-essentials, and raised
him, not only above the assumed authority of the
Church, and above the might of tradition, but above
the influence of hereditary scholastic opinions, the
power of prejudices, and the dominion of the letter."
Even our final separation from the Church of Rome
has not been, as you must be aware, an act of ours,
but of hers, through the Council of Trent; by the
excommunication of which, as not acknowledged oecu
menical by your Church, you can deem us but little
affected. If we had rejected the Church of Rome
and her followers in our country, and declared that we
must break off communion with them on account of
their doctrine and practice, I do not hesitate to say,
that we should have been fully justified ; yet, the fact
is, that we did not do that, but were cut off by them.
The sacrifices which our forefathers were willing to
make to Church unity, frequently expressing a willing
ness to admit, in a certain degree, the primacy of the
Pope, until after nearly twenty years of bitter strife
and mutual recriminations and severe suffering on
their side, they found themselves obliged to protest,
in strong terms, against his assumed authority as
x An Historical Enquiry, &c, &c, page 8.

14
of divine right, (at Smalealden, lSS?); moreover,
their constant appeals to a really free and general
council, certainly argue anything but a sectarian and
schismatic spirit. And who were these protesting and
reformed bodies that declared against him? They
were not new congregations brought together by any
new and particular teaching ; they had not assembled,
as entirely new bodies and communions, round the
standard of some peculiar doctrine, (which is the way
in which sects and heresies are formed and gathered
together,) but they were, and remained, (and we, their
descendants, are now,) the ancient, established, eccle
siastical bodies of the different German provinces,
communities and territories, just as the Reformed
Church of England is the ancient Church of the land ;
they had only, like her, corrected errors and abolished
abuses ; and their " articles of religion" were not then
doctrinal rules, but only declarations of the uniformity
of their faith with that of the Catholic Church — the
one, the Augsburg Confession, to be exhibited to the
emperor and diet, the other, the Articuli Smalcaldici,
to a general council. They were precisely an assertion
of their catholicity.
Nor can it be said, that our Church has, at any
subsequent period, wilfully given up her claims to
catholicity, though this word, not being a German
one, is no more generally used in her than it was
in England until a very late period*. She has
* It is, however, used in writing Latin. The Latin edition of
our symbolical books constantly employs the term, and even modern
authors, when writing Latin, make use of it ; for instance, a recent
learned editor of these books, says in his preface : — " Haec tria sym-
bola oecumenica, usu Ecclesise Roman© solenni recepta, Ecclesia
Evangelica, nt Catholicam se profiteretur, sacrosancta retinuit.''
(C. A. Hase, Libri Symbolici, Prolegg., p. 2.) And thus in attempt
ing to write English, I have thought it right to use the word where

15
always declared, .that she is only a branch of the one,
unbroken Church of Christ, and has shown herself
willing to acknowledge all other branches of the same;
she does not admit that any interruption has taken
place in her descent from the Apostles, but has most
firmly declared, that even in the darkest ages, and when
men, whom one is loathe to designate with the names
due to them, sat in the highest chairs of the Church,
the Church had not perished. She has never set up any
new pretension against the ancient Church, but at her
very re-constitution or re-formation (not foundation)
proclaimed, and (whatever the aberrations of indivi
duals may have been) as a Church always* maintained
her full and perfect adhesion to the general councils, as
much and as solemnly as the Church of England has
done ; she has never acted on the principle of making
any new, merely as contrary to what was traditional,
but ha strongly opposed all attempts of that kind,
following the example of Luther, who left the Wart-
burg at the peril of his life to resist wanton and unne
cessary innovations ; she has made it a point to retain
what was in existence by any lawful ecclesiastical
authority, as far as the Scriptural rule of faith did not
in writing German I should not ; and it would be just as unfair in my
countrymen to blame me for using it here, as it would be for
Englishmen to do so for not using it in German;— consistency is in
this case in the very change of expression, as at present it would
convey a very different meaning in each language.
* This is, indeed, not saying too much; even in the days when
the contagion of rationalism had most widely spread, the Church
was not guilty of defection,— witness your own words: — "The
system of the Church is, of course, contained in its Articles and
other authentic documents ; and until it has pronounced its appro
bation of any doctrines by receiving them into this code, its actual
character may, indeed, vary according to the tenets of the majority
of its members, but the Church itself is not responsible for them."
— Hist. Enq., part ii., page 42.

16
clearly and authoritatively demand its abolition*, or
sound historical research demonstrate that it had not
come down from the ancient Church, but had crept in,
as an abuse, at a later period ; she affirms it to be the
duty of all Christians to submit to the constituted
ecclesiastical authorities and to their censuref, unless
indeed they should censure not man, but God and His
wordrf; and has, even when oppressed and persecuted,
* Art. XV. of the Augsburg Confession, says: — " Of ecclesiasti
cal rites, they teach that those rites are to be observed which can
be observed without sin, and which are conducive to tranquillity
and good order in the Church, such as certain fasts, holy times,
festivals, and the like. But the people is admonished with respect
to these things, that the consciences be not burthened by them, as
though such observance were necessary to salvation." And to
show what they conceive to be observances that cannot be kept
without sin, and to prevent any wanton or wilful application of
their first-stated principle, they proceed : — " The people is admo
nished also, that human traditions, instituted to reconcile God, to
merit grace, and to atone for sin, are contrary to the Gospel and to
the doctrine of faith; wherefore vows and traditions about eating,
and keeping days, &c, instituted for meriting grace and atoning for
sin, are not useful, and against the Gospel."
t The Augsb. Conf., part ii., sect. 7, says : — " According to the
Gospel, or, as it is called, of divine right, no other jurisdiction belongs
to bishops as bishops, i. e., to those to whom the ministry of the word
and the sacraments is entrusted, than to remit sins, to take cogni
zance of doctrine and reject such as differs from the Gospel, and to
exclude from the communion of the Church those offenders whose
impiety is known, without human power, by the word of God.
And in this necessarily and of divine right, the churches must yield
them obedience, after what is written, Luc. x. 16, He that heareth
you, heareth me."
% Ibid. "But when bishops teach aud decree against the
Gospel, then the Churches have the commandment of God, which
prohibits obedience." (Matt. vii. 15; Gal. i. 18; 2 Corin. xiii.
8, 10.) And then they appeal to the Canon law, which, in exact
ing the obedience of the laity to the bishops, distinctly excepts the
case of error in faith, and quote Saint Augustine (c. Petiliani Epist.) :
— " Not even to Catholic bishops consent is to be given, when they
are in error or entertain opinions contrary to the canonical Scrip
tures of God."

17
implored the bishops* not to force her into disobe
dience : — she was forced, at that time, into disobedience
to the then constituted ecclesiastical authorities in
order to be obedient to God, and therefore claims now
not an episcopal, yet not only a general and doctrinal,
but a ministerial descent and succession from the
Apostles in her ministry, which ministerial body in her
does not appropriate to itself, but shares with and
administers for all Christians the sacred office of priest-
* The very powerful conclusion of the Augsb. Conf. is as
follows: — "Easily might the bishops retain the legitimate obedi
ence, if they would not urge us to observe traditions which, with a
good conscience, cannot be observed. Now they command celibacy,
they receive none unless he will swear not to teach the pure
Gospel. Qur Churches do not ask, that the bishops should restore
concord by the sacrifice of their honour, which, however, it would
become good shepherds to do. It is only asked that they should
take off the unjust burthens which are new and received against the
custom of the Church Catholic. If it cannot be obtained that
observances which cannot be kept without sin be taken away,
then we must follow the Apostolic rule which prescribes (Acts v,
29), to obey God rather than men. Peter (1 Peter v. 2) enjoins
bishops ' not to be Lords,' nor to rule over the Churches. Now it
is not intended that the bishops should be deprived of their ruling
power (dominatio), but this alone is asked of them, that they allow
the Gospel to be purely taught, and relax some few observances
which cannot be kept without sin. If they will not give up any
thing, then let them look themselves how they are to give account to
God for having, through their obstinacy, caused schism?
And the general disposition of the Evangelical estates is beau
tifully expressed by a contemporary historian, the Saxon chancellor,
Dr. Greg. Briick, who had himself presented the Confession to the
emperor, and who says in his history of the diet : — " The mind of
the Evangelical estates was that, provided the doctrine was admitted
by the Papist party, and nothing declared necessary that God had
not made necessary or obligatory to bind and constrain the con
science, then, whatever they might be asked to do, or would do, as
serviceable to unity, without perverting doctrine and faith, they on
their part would not fail to bear and suffer anything though not
necessary nor binding upon them, only for love and concord's sake."
I ask confidently, does this show a desire of separation ?
f!

18
hood, ascribed to all by Scripture, and distributes the
word and the sacraments and mysteries of God, not
in its own name as a peculiar body, but in the name of
the Church and her Lord ; — she has, to sum up, not
seceded from the Church Catholic, nor does she put
herself in opposition to it, but, having been driven out,
not of the Church (for that, thank God, was not in the
power either of the Pope or of the Emperor, or of the
Council of Trent), but out of the communion of Rome
and her spiritual bondsmen, has then been contented
to sit still and wait, in communion with the (Episcopal)
Church of Sweden, and that of Denmark, and many
dispersed Christian bodies of the Continent, and with
the Church of England too, — for the good time of
God, when He shall think fit to heal the wounds of his
whole Church, and, sending her the glad tidings of
peace, to make her see and feel by experience, what
now she must, not seeing, believe : that she is one
body! Is this to be called a sectarian, schismatical,
uncatholic spirit ?
But is this enough ? Have I nothing more to say
of our Church, but that she sits still and waits ? Has
she no appointed work to perform, no proper part in
the completion of the great scheme of God, for con
verting the world into the kingdom of Heaven ? Has
she no position allotted her in the warfare which the
citizens of this kingdom have to carry on here upon
earth ? or has she forgotten her task, forsaken her post,
laid aside her weapons ? If she had, we should not see
her bleeding from the wounds which she too has received
in that warfare; her very sufferings and pangs are
signs that she has not shrunk from the struggle !
Little would the mere absence of any uncatholic act
prove, if it were not possible to show, positively and

19
substantially, wherein her catholicity consists, i. e.,
what is her peculiar position within the one Church
Universal, and how the life that flows and breathes
through the whole body shows itself in her. For, if
there is, as your Church asserts, any such thing as
National Churches, they must certainly have their
peculiar national character ; if God has, as we firmly
believe, ordained Himself, in his wisdom, the diver
sities of nations and of their different characters, in
order to bring forth and unfold in manifold directions,
and again to bring together and harmonize all the
powers and treasures which the mind of mankind
contains as his gift : then we must believe also, that
each National Church has, according to the character
of the nation which she has to sanctify, some peculiar
duty to perform, in order that witness may be borne to
Christ in all those different directions in which the mind
of mankind may be developed. The Church of Christ,
to be found everywhere, and to be really, not nominally,
universal or catholic, must go all the various ways
which have been traced for nations, not only over the
wide surface of the earth, but over the wider range of
the intellectual world by Him, who " hath made of one
blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of
the earth, and hath determined the times before
appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" in the
moral and intellectual, no less than in the physical
world. Our Church, then, believes herself to have been,
and to be still called upon to be, a witness for the
great eternal truth, that there is no life for man except
in the personal, individual, and undivided commu
nion with God through Christ, which on man's side
is called faith, on God's side, grace; — grace, that freely
communicates its own all-sufficient power and life to
c 2

20
sinful man, taking away his sin; faith, that simply
believes in this grace, and thus accepts it. That this
communion was once for all realized and established
in Christ's life and death, that it is not to be ever
renewed by any new sacrifice or new incarnation, but
that it exists and is in the Church as the body of
Christ, and that now man has only to appropriate it to
himself by entering into it and living in it ; but also,
that this individual appropriation is absolutely neces
sary; that the life of Christ must become the very
life of every Christian, and that the life of the whole
body has no reality when separated in any way from
the life of the members ; again, that this communion
of every member with Christ is effected through grace
only and has its life in faith only : this is the sum and
substance of her doctrine, and in the maintenance of
this doctrine, which is not peculiar to her, but, as she
believes, more fully developed in her, she asserts, at
the same time, her catholicity.
She cannot, therefore, allow anything to be
interposed between man and his Saviour: if men
are, she must plainly tell them that, in taking
Christ's place, they are assuming the position of
Antiehrist ; if outward ordinances and observances
are, she must protest against them, and declaring that
they cannot be kept without sin, do away with them ;
if good works and man's own merits are, she cannot
hesitate to say, that they thus change their nature
from good to evil ; if sacraments are, by being made
outward signs, saving ex opere operato, without spiritual
communion in the individual, she declares them to be
perverted and virtually destroyed ; if the Church her
self were, she would look upon that as an act of self-
annihilation. But she does not thus interpose herself;
she contends that this spiritual communion and union

21
Of all Christians with Christ is embodied in the Church
as the body of Christ, and is the ground and source
of their intercommunion with each other. She does
not only acknowledge the claim of every Christian to
this privilege, but she requires the exercise of it as a
duty, and cannot, will not allow any one to stand afar
and to receive the life only through intermediate,
human channels; for she is convinced that her own
life as a body must be injured, diminished, vanishing,
when the Spirit is not effectually present in the mem
bers ; and she has learned from experience that, when
the necessity of that personal communication of man
with God through faith in Christ is forgotten, or even
not clearly taught, that this omission then exercises
the most baneful influence upon all other points of
Christian doctrine ; yea, that the very idea of the
Church can no longer be rightly understood. In the
days which preceded the Reformation, she finds that
this doctrine was nearly forgotten, or at least, very gene
rally neglected, kept out of sight, often virtually,
sometimes explicitly denied ; that men were looked
upon and treated as members of the body without
spiritual intercommunion with the Head; that salva
tion was connected with outward observances and
badges ; that justification by faith was either not taught
at all, or had become a mere dogma among others, not
a living and vivifying truth. Then she was, amongst
all the branches of the Church Catholic, the first who
felt herself called upon to bear witness to this truth ;
to assert that there is such a thing as direct, immediate,
personal communion of man with his Maker and his
Saviour, and that this communion is through and in
faith ; and she called upon all men to believe in this
communion, in the word of God which promises and
exhibits it, in the grace of God which effects it in sinful

22
man, clothing him in the righteousness of Christ. She
proclaimed this, not as a new doctrine, but as the
doctrine of the Church Catholic ; she appealed for it to
Scripture, to Catholic antiquity, to primitive Fathers,
to witnesses of almost every age of the Church*,
* I may quote, for instance, Luther's words, in his preface to
the edition of the German Theology, a work of an author, of whom
nothing is known, but that he was a priest connected with the
Teutonic order at Frankfort, probably about the beginning of the
fifteenth century ; and I may safely say, that there are few books
containing so much profound thought, real piety, and truly spiritual
wisdom, as these few sheets do. Luther says (a. 1518): — "After
the Bible and St. Augustine, I have not met with any book, from
which I have learned, and mean still to learn, more and better, what
God, Christ, and man and all things are ; and now first I under
stand how it is true what some great scholars tauntingly say of
us "Wittenberg theologians, that we are undertaking new things,
as though there had not been men in former times and elsewhere.
Why, surely there have been ; but God's wrath, incurred by our
sins, has not allowed us to be worthy to see or hear them ; for it is
manifest that in the universities, for a long time, these things have
not been handled, and that it has come to that point, that God's
holy word has not only been lying under the bench, but has nearly
been rotten from dust and moths ! Let any one read this little
book, and then say whether our theology be new or old ; for this
book is not new. But if they say, as formerly, that we are German
theologians, we must let that be. I thank God, that I can hear and
find my God in the German tongue, so as neither I nor they with
me have found Him hitherto either in the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew
tongue." And this is a glory which it would be very ungrateful in
the children of the " Church of the German tongue" to allow their
mother to be deprived of. But I believe I ought not to withhold
from such of my readers as may know German, the original words
in all their simple and powerful beauty: — " Und dass ich nach
meinem alten Narren richme, ist mir nachst der Bibel und St.
Augustin nicht vorgekommen ein Buch, daraus ich mehr eslernet
habe und will, was Gott, Christus, Mensch und alle Dinge seien ;
und befinde nun allererst dass es wahr sei, was etliche Hoch-
gelehrte von uns Wittenbergischen Theologen schimpflich reden
als wollten wir neue Dinge vornehmen, gleich als waren nicht
vorhin und anderswo auch Leute gewesen. la freilich sind fie
gewesen ; aber Gottes Zorn, durch unsere Siinde verwirkt, hat uns

23
yea, and to Christian experience also, for she believes
that there is reality in it,, and that every Christian
" hath the witness in himself." (1 John v. 10.) I say
our Church did, for Luther and his friends were only
her instruments through which she spake ; and their
life was centered in this truth, and all their teaching-
was, as it ought to be, under its influence and never
separated from it. And thus the doctrine of justifica
tion by faith was to them not a mere barren, notional
doctrine, couched in dry technical terms derived from
human jurisprudence, but the living, glowing expression
of the blessed fact of our salvation^ and therefore the
very centre of the whole Christian doctrine ; and faith
was to them not, what it appeared to their opponents,
a mere historical persuasion about some past transac
tions (in earth or in heaven), nor a (reasonable or un
reasonable) admission of some logical, speculative,
metaphysical positions or may-be truths, nor an excited
or even exalted state of feeling, real or unreal, but the
one substantial act of the mind, the whole mind,
trusting in the grace, (i. e., the self-communication) of
God through and in Christ.
But so far was this exhibition of the justifica
tion by faith, and of the individual communion with
Christ, from destroying or denying or even disparaging
nicht lassen wiirdig sein, dieselben zu sehen oder zu horen : deun es
ist am Tage, dass in den Universitaten eine lange Zeit solches nicht
gehandelt und dahin gebracht ist, dass das heilige Wort Gottes
nicht allein unter der Bank gelegen, sondern von Staub und Motten
beinah verweset ist. Lese dies Biichlein wer da wolle und sage
dann, ob die Theologie bei uns neu oder alt sei, denn dieses Buch ist
nicht neu. Werden sie aber vielleicht wie vormals sagen, wir seien
deutsche Theologen : das lassen wir also sein. Ich danke Gott,
dass ich in deutscher Zunge meinen Gott also hb're und finde, als
ich und sie mit mir bisher nicht funden haben, weder in lateinisclier,
griechischer noch ebraischer Zunge."

24
the objective nature of those acts which our Saviour
instituted as the visible centres of the Church,
and as means or instruments of grace, that no one
ever asserted their reality more strenuously than he
who lived all in faith, whose mind was the very type of
faith, Luther. He knew that they can be truly
appreciated (not explained) only when viewed in con
nexion with this doctrine of justification as the indivi
dual apprehension of Christ ; that then only it can be
understood, how they may be at the same time pledges,
badges, means of intercommunion of and with the
body, and acts affecting most intimately the personal,
individual life of every partaker ; for then only it is
acknowledged that the communion of the body and of
the members with Christ is not only inseparable, but
is virtually and actually one and the same : again, how
they may at the same time be on the one side divine
realities, exhibiting and containing God's grace, and
yet, on the other side, be a blessing only through
faith ; for then only they can be felt to embody that
individual and spiritual communion, in which faith
and grace are only the two sides of the same divine
reality. It is only when the doctrine of justification
by faith is forgotten and, as it were, taken out of the
sacraments, that they become mere outward signs, of
either no virtue at all, or of a magic virtue; when
communion with Christ is withheld from the spirit of
man, then the monstrous idea must make men's minds
captive that, by the action of the Church, Christ is to be
united not to man, but to bread and wine, to dead
elements of this world, not to the living spirit of man,
the breath of life that God breathed into the form
taken from the dust of the ground.
And as the sacraments, so in the light of this
same truth Scripture became alive; became at once,

25
from a dead letter and a formulary of doctrines
and a " handwriting of ordinances," like the ancient
law, a poAver of life, by which men are " born
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by the word of God, which liveth and abideth
for ever." It might be shown how the acknowledg
ment or neglect of that truth throws light or shade
upon every point of Christian doctrine; I will only
remark, that it affects not only the freedom and
spirituality but the very union of the Church, the
idea of which cannot be rightly understood without
it. For if there were no direct and personal com
munion of the members with the Head, then the life
of the whole could not be actually in the members, and
then the whole itself, the Church, could be only
either a voluntary arbitrary aggregate of units, really
at one with each other, or an outward institution,
existing not in, but out of or above these units, com
prising them within its bounds, but not living in them.
The Church then could not be a mystical body, a
mystery, an object of faith, as the creeds show her to
be; and the very sacramental view of the Church
which you urge upon those that are inclined to those
above-mentioned lower views, would be destroyed.
But when the great truth we are speaking of is fully
acknowledged, then this view is brought out in all its
clearness and power ; then the body is in the members
and the members are in the body, because they all are
in Christ ; and as the existence of the Church is based
not upon the will of the individuals in her, but upon
the great fact of Christ's incarnation, comprising his
life, his death, and his resurrection, thus every indivi
dual life is based, not upon faith as an act of his own,
but through faith upon this same act, upon Christ.
This is what our Church believes herself called upon

2G
to bear witness to. The truth itself is common to her
with the whole Church Catholic ; her bearing witness
to it she found a duty peculiarly assigned to her, as
other duties have been to other Churches. And, as
she had to come forward for the necessity of entwining
and uniting Christ's spiritual life in the Church with
individual life, even so, I should say, the Church of
England is called upon more fully to develop and
realize the idea of a National Church, or the necessity
of entwining and uniting Christ's spiritual life in the
Church with national life. Our duties are based on
the same foundation, and must ultimately arrive at the
same end, though they lie in different directions ; it is
only through misunderstanding that they can appear
incompatible with each other. If our position is called
German Protestantism, we willingly accept that name,
for there is much against which we have to protest.
If our Church be reproached with individualism, why
she must be content to bear that reproach,^only she
must not cease to proclaim that individuals must be
justified and sanctified by Christ in the Church, and
she must not forget, what I am willing to say she
might learn in a great degree from your Church, that
nations too must be thus sanctified as organic bodies.
With you, one might say, the national spirit has shone
most gloriously forth ; our German nation has often
been characterized as having rather an individualizing
spirit ; if this be so, then it is our Church's duty not
to destroy, but to sanctify that peculiar national spirit,
and to make it bear fruit for the ultimate realization
of the kingdom of Heaven !
I can have no objection to grant that all this may
have been but very imperfectly worked out in the his
tory and the real existence of our Church ; that in her
present state there is much that is contradictory to it ;

27
she does not pretend to be of those who want no
physician. Moreover I am well aware that along this
peculiar line of duties and privileges there is a corre
sponding line of temptations, yea, of besetting sins ;
it is in that very same peculiar character that our
dangers and our faults lie, and we have had ample
experience of this truth in the struggles that have rent
our Church. But this is no reason why we should
shrink from those duties and privileges, and the evils
attendant upon imperfect or mistaken attempts to
carry out great principles of truth, can never be a
ground for abandoning these principles. Again, if
hitherto in asserting the claims and duties of individual
life, we have not explicitly enough asserted, or even
sometimes lost sight of the claims and duties of
national and catholic unity, that is no reason why we
should less strongly follow up our own principle ; for
it is thus only that we can arrive at the centre, in
which all great and true principles have their real
union; by shrinking from the principle, by shifting,
and adopting mediums and half-way unions, we can
only make the breach worse ; we should gain nothing,
and lose all that we have. But by following, humbly
and faithfully, the guidance of the Spirit, we may hope
to attain the true union ; and trust that He will in
crease and render more perfect that life which He has,
partly in spite of, partly through those very struggles,
reawakened when it seemed dormant.
And now, after this developement of what I con
ceive to be the peculiar spirit of our national German
Church, allow me to pass on to the specific charges
you bring against her.
They are principally contained in the very eloquent
parallel which you draw between what would be the
faith and practice of an English and of a German

28
congregation both living under the same bishop at
Jerusalem (p. 130, et seq.) You bring forward, as is
very natural, in the first instance, their respective
views of the Church ; then you proceed to state some
differences in practice, and again return (p. 132,) to
more general reproaches against the spirit which you
suppose would animate German congregations at Jeru
salem. If what you say, in the first respect, of our doctrine
were well founded, it would certainly go to disprove
all that I have ventured to say about the catholic
character of our Church. If she did thus openly
declare against the existence, yea, the very idea of the
Church Catholic, she could not be herself a branch
of it. You say, the English congregation would "hold
' one Holy Catholic Church throughout all the world,'
knit together by its bishops as 'joints and bands,'
under its one head, Christ, and joined on by unbroken
succession to the Apostles," (I am not going to ques
tion this description of the Church, although I may,
perhaps, be allowed to say, that I cannot find it either
in the Creeds or in the Articles of your Church) ; and
you contrast with this belief the doctrine of the Ger
mans, as holding " an indefinite number of Churches,
hanging together by an agreement in a scheme of doc
trine framed by themselves, and modified by the civil
power" (p. 131). For every part of this sentence you
bring proof in a note under the text; you will, there
fore, allow me to consider separately every part, toge
ther with the passage brought to prove it.
For the holding of " an indefinite number of
Churches," you quote, not any doctrinal assertion of
the Augsburg Confession, or any other symbolical
book, but the introductory historical phrase, " The

29
Churches among us teach" (Note f). Surely yoii can
not imagine that the framers of that declaration of faith
did embody in this expression any doctrinal view con
trary to the unity of the Church ; or that they intended
thereby to designate anything, but the actually exist
ing ecclesiastical or religious bodies or communities
which were called upon at that time to give an account
of their faith. Nor can you disapprove of the name of
Churches being given to individual ecclesiastical bodies,
which the whole Catholic Church has ever done, and
the present Roman and Eastern Church continually
do, as well as your own. The Augsburg Confession
cannot be liable to censure for speaking of " the
Churches among us," more than St. Paul is for salut
ing the Corinthians from "the Churches of Asia,"
(1 Cor. xvi. 9,) or for speaking of " the Churches of
Galatia," (Ib. v. 1,) or "of Macedonia," (2 Cor. viii.
1 ;) no, nor more than St. John is for writing, in the
Spirit, to the " seven Churches which are in Asia,"
(Revel, i. 4.) And how will you defend yourself
against the charge of "holding an indefinite number
of Churches," when you speak of " our sister or
daughter Churches?" (p. 22.) As far as I know, the
English congregations at Jerusalem will express their
belief in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by
reciting, without omission, alteration, or addition, the
Apostles' and the Nicene Creed ; and, believe me, in
exactly the same way, and in the same words, will
German congregations there confess the same belief.
Or do you suppose, perhaps, that they are not to
repeat the same creeds? Has our Church altered
them ? I hesitate in repeating it ; but you assert this
positively and without qualification, saying, (p. 66,)
that " the Lutherans, on their views, have substituted
(for ' the Holy Catholic Church,') the words ' a Chris-

30
tian Church,' " — not in spirit, or in their common way
of teaching, but actually and literally in the " Creed."
Now, on behalf of our Church, and indeed on behalf
of any body of Christians that may, correctly or in
correctly, be called Lutheran, I must beg leave to
contradict and repudiate, positively and without qua
lification, this fearful charge of an alteration of the
common Christian creed. And what authority have
you for such a charge ? That of a writer — I think I
ought rather to say, that of the careless language of
a writer, in a German periodical*, (quoted in the
Appendix B, p. 167,) who left out the word " univer
sal" probably quite unintentionally, but who certainly
shows, on his side, very little insight into the real
nature and working of things, in ascribing so much to
the retention of the word " catholic." Is it right to
make such a charge on such a ground? If you had
looked to the authorized formularies of our Church, as,
for instance, to the form of prayer prescribed in the
United Church of Prussia, or to any authoritative
edition of Luther's Catechism, you would have found
there "One Holy Universal Church." Nor is there
one Latin edition of our symbolical books, in which
you would not find the creeds exactly the same as
they were handed down in the Latin Church, and the
words employed, Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam. As
for the German editions and formularies, in which not
the word catholic (katholisch), but universal (allgemein),
is used, I need not remind you, who are an equally
accomplished German and Greek scholar, that this is
the real and only possible German translation of
" catholic," and that we, not having the same habit of
retaining Latin or Greek words as you have in your
semi-Latin language, could not but translate it in
* Dr. Lechler, in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken.

31
order to convey an intelligible and unequivocal meaning
to unlearned members of the Church. Nor do I,
much as I am inclined to love the ancient and expres
sive term "catholic," (which has the advantage of
being an epithet applicable not only to the Universal
Church, but also to particular Churches, to denote their
character of catholicity,) regret our having translated
it ; for it seems to me that much of the misunder
standing which seems to grow upon some English
minds, has thereby been prevented. Not the English
Church, as the above-mentioned German writer seems
to imagine, but some individuals may be influenced by
such words*.
I must follow you word for word in the important
statement of our supposed view of the Church. You
proceed, (p. 131,) "an indefinite number of Churches,
hanging together by an agreement," and there you
stop to quote Art. VII. of the Augsburg Confession,
" for the true unity of the Church" — but oh ! let me
stop here and ask you what has become of the " indefi
nite number of Churches ?" Here I find " the Church"
and characteristics of its "unity." Now we might,
perhaps, be not only practically very deficient in our
realization of Church Unity, but even have very mis
taken opinions as to its requisites and essentials ; yet,
* I may take this opportunity of warning English readers
against the erroneous supposition which I have found prevailing
among many Englishmen, as though inferences might be drawn
from single articles in such German periodicals, as to the opinions
and sentiments of their editors, or co-operators, or any body of men
connected with them. As we are not generally, in Germany,
formed into very compact parties, a great variety of shades of
opinion is thought admissible, and each article, signed by the
writer, conveys merely his individual opinion ; so that it would be
very unjust to make Nitzsch, and the other distinguished editors of
that periodical^ responsible for the opinions expressed in the article
in question.

32
after such a statement, you could not reproach us with
denying the very idea of it by " holding an indefinite
number of Churches." Suppose even the characteristics
we give of Church Unity were different from those
which the Church of England gives in her Articles of
Religion : yet the substantial acknowledgment of the
Church as essentially one, and at unity with itself,
would thereby not be done away with. But are they
different from those which the Church of England
authoritatively proclaims? What are they with us?
" To agree as to the doctrine of the Gospel and the
administration of the Sacraments." Are these not
exactly and literally the same as those given in the
XlXth Article of your Church ? I should think your
readers must have been startled at finding here
denounced as a heretical or schismatical position, what
in their Prayer Book they find as the doctrine of their
own Church. And to make our meaning still clearer,
and to show what we think not necessary to Church
Unity, we make in the same Article the very same
declaration which your Church makes in its XXXIVth
Article: " it is not necessary that there should be in all
places similar human traditions or rites and ceremonies
ordained by men."
But I must ask you one more question, and a
very serious one. Why did you, in stating our views
about the unity or plurality of Churches, not quote
at first this declaratory Article VII., but a mere
introductory phrase? — and why, when you quote
the Article, do you leave out the most important
part of it, viz., the beginning, which says : — " Further,
they teach that the one (or one, if you prefer it; it
makes no difference) Holy Church (una Sancta Ecclesia)
is always to remain (perpetuo mansura sit)" ! ! Or did,
perhaps, the framers of the Confession, in using the

33
name of the Church, mean something different ? Do
they, perhaps, mean the invisible Church (a term, by
the bye, which they knew not, and which was used
only at a much later period)? They do not wish to
be equivocal ; they immediately go on to define this
Church ; " the Church is a congregation of saints, in
which the Gospel is rightly (purely) taught, and the
sacraments duly ministered." As this can be under
stood only of the visible Church, and as it is, moreover,
the very definition which your Church (Art. XIX.)
gives of "the visible Church of Christ," I think I
ought not to say a word more about it.
But to return to your statement of what our
" agreement" is to ; perhaps there might be a differ
ence in this. You say, " an agreement to a scheme
of doctrine framed by themselves." Is the "pure
doctrine of the Gospel and the due ministration of the
sacraments" then "a scheme framed by ourselves?''
The Augsburg Confession certainly was framed by our
divines, as the XXXIX Articles were by English
divines ; but have we ever claimed agreement to it as
a requisite for the union or the unity of the Church ?
Does any one suppose that the authors of it were
absurd enough to look upon this their work as a means
of union, or even as a standard for the whole Church ?
They were far too humble and modest ever to contem
plate any such thing ; and you are too well acquainted
with the history of our Reformation, not to know that
it was intended, by " the Churches among us," merely
as a testimonial of the agreement of their faith with
that of the whole Catholic Church, and as a witness
against certain particular errors and abuses which had
crept into the Church; and that even subsequently,
when, from a declaration, it assumed the character of
an authority, it was, and is now, looked upon only as a
D

34
national standard for our German Churches, and as a
safeguard, a guarantee, a warning against such errors
as we know, from history and experience, to have been
most fatal to us ; exactly in the same way as I under
stand you would wish the English Articles to be looked
upon. Our agreement in doctrine with the Holy
Church Universal is embodied and expressed precisely
in the same way as that of the English Church is;
namely, in the three Creeds, which are prefixed to our
symbolical books and inserted in the formularies of
our Church.
You conclude with the startling assertion, that our
doctrine has been " modified by the civil power," and
you tell your readers in a note, that this took place
" in the union of the Lutheran and Reformed bodies."
(Note h.) Now, I am sure you will be glad to hear
that your information must have been incorrect. And
I wonder from what source you can have derived that
information. You cannot have seen any new sym
bolical book drawn up for the purpose of the union,
any alteration made in the former confessions, any
formulary of worship containing a new doctrine or
even a modified view. If there were such, they would
have been the work of the ministerial or clerical
body, not of the civil power, which would stand in no
other relations to them than in England the State or
the Government does to your Articles. But I may
confidently say, there are none. If, in some parts of
Germany, the clergy agreed about the manner in
which the doctrines were to be stated in the Catechism
for the instruction of children, (as they did, for example,
in Baden,) they disclaimed, at the same time, any
intention of giving to this form a symbolical authority;
and the civil power had nothing at all to do with it.
But in Prussia not even so much was done; and the

35
Chureh, taught by the experience of former failures,
purposely avoided any meddling with the doctrines,
any modification of expressions in the symbols, any
attempt at framing new terms, that might embody or
seem to embody new doctrinal views. The union was
simply an acknowledgment that such shades of opinion
in the views entertained of divine mysteries, as existed
between the different bodies of German Protestants,
need not, and indeed ought not, to prevent them from
acknowledging and receiving together these mysteries,
from joining hands and minds in prayer and acts of
worship, and from working and acting together as one
body for the glory of God and the propagation of the
Gospel. This principle, the leading principle of that
union, I believe to be neither a sectarian nor a latitu-
dinarian, but the only true Catholic principle of union.
And if it was suggested by a pious and truly Christian
king, surely this is only a reason to be more thankful
to God, not to look with mistrust upon it as coming
from the civil power; it is neither to learned theolo
gians nor to ordained priests that the power of benefit
ing the Church is confined, thank God!
I trust I have shown that our authoritative doc
trine about the Church, as an object of faith, does not
differ from that which the Church of England autho
ritatively proclaims. The case stands a little differently
as regards the differences in practice between the two
Churches, although I think it may be said, that they
are much less essential than they would appear from
your statement, which has somewhat of an oratorical
character. There is, for instance, a real difference in
the point you first mention ; but your words are, no
doubt against your will, calculated to produce the
erroneous impression as if the Germans deemed con
firmation altogether Unnecessary. When, in consequence
D 2

36
of circumstances not depending upon them, they could
have no confirmation from bishops, they thought them
selves entitled, or rather obliged, to have this act (of
receiving the confession of faith from the younger
members of the Church, of solemnly admitting them
to her full privileges in partaking of the Eucharist,
and of imploring upon them, in her name, the increased
blessing of the Divine Spirit) performed by such
Church ministers as they could have, namely, pres
byters ; and we believe that we are fully borne out in
this practice by the voice of Catholic antiquity. You
will, perhaps, recollect also, from your visit to Germany,
that in no other branch of the Church this act is per
formed with more solemnity, and preceded by a stricter
and more extended course of instruction, than in ours.
We attach very great importance to it, as we conceive
it to contain, on the part of the younger members of
the Church, their solemn declaration, that now they
are aware of what is the Christian's faith and duty,
and are willing consciously to take upon themselves
the performance of their baptismal vows ; and, on the
part of the Church, the seal and pledge that she has
observed and fulfilled both parts of our Saviour's com
mandment, " Go ye and teaeh all nations, {literally,
make all nations my disciples,) baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com
manded you" We look, therefore, upon tho prepara
tion for confirmation as one of the most important and
solemn duties in the Christian minister's cure of souls.
I must acknowledge a similar, but not a greater
difference in the next point, with respect to. " uncom
missioned presbyters." We do contend, it is true,
that, when the bishops refused ordination to such as
acknowledged the Gospel, and when, therefore, Chris-

37
tians had to choose between the bishops and the
Gospel, as was the case when our Churches were
obliged to constitute themselves and to commission
ministers in order to escape the evils of anarchy and
to prevent the establishment of the threatening prin
ciple of Independentism, that then presbyters might
not only but were imperiously called upon to confer
the authority that had been given to them, to commu
nicate that power and office which actually was theirs,
and thus, having been commissioned themselves, to
commission (ordain) others, for the very purpose of
maintaining an Apostolical succession. If they had
refused to do so, they would have been responsible for
all the evils that might have resulted to the Church
from the violent intrusion of " uncommissioned" men
as teachers and ministers. Or if they had applied to
other countries for bishops, why, would not that have
been, at that time, the very establishment of schism,
by raising chair against chair, bishop against bishop, in
the same see? This is the reason why we had and
have no bishops ; and having had experience, that God
has bestowed upon us the privileges of the Gospel
without bishops when they had refused to be the
channel of God's free grace, and believing that we are
saved not through this or that outward ordinance,
be it ever so useful and sacred, but by that same grace
as received by faith, we must disclaim any notion of
episcopal commission or succession that would make it
essential to individual salvation and indispensable for
the maintenance of the Gospel.
Our forefathers did not deem the bishops (or priests
episcopally ordained) " commissioned" to teach error,
and to withhold from the Church essential parts of
the sacraments ; nor do we think that when bishops
refused to teach the truth or duly to administer the

38
Sacraments, then the truth was not to be taught at
all, nor the sacraments to be administered at all.
But a commission is most distinctly required, by " the
Churches among us," for the exercise of the minis
terial duties and functions; not a commission from
the State, nor from any number of men assembled in
an individual congregation, but a ministerial commis
sion in the corporative body of the clergy; and they
have always condemned the assumption that any one,
" uncommissioned," might go and preach the Gospel
on his own authority, setting up a new communion or
congregation for himself*. In concordance with this
doctrine it has been the constant practice, retained of
course in the United Church in Prussia, that candi
dates for holy orders have been allowed to preach only
upon licence of the ecclesiastical authorities, and to
administer the sacraments only after regular clerical
ordination. I think you will, upon consideration, admit that
it would not be fair to charge us with "having laid
the Nicene Creed aside," even though it were found
only at the head of our symbolical books, where you
acknowledge that we subscribe to it; but you will
find it not only in the formulary of ordination pro-
* Augb. Conf, Art. V. Of the Ministry of the Church. That
we may come to this faith, the ministry of preaching the Gospel
and of administering the sacraments has been instituted (by God,
they mean ; for in another passage, part ii. Art VII., they dis
tinctly state this to be of divine right). And Art. XIV., Of the
Order in the Church, they teach that it is not lawful to any man to
teach publicly in the Church, or to administer the sacraments,
unless he be lawfully called. Compare with this, Art. XXIII. of
the English Church.
The Augb. Conf. insists most vigorously upon the distinction
between outward rights and powers which bishops may have got
from the secular authority, and ministerial powers which they
receive from God through the Church.

39
posed to the candidate, but in the common Agenda or
form of public worship, " to be used wherever hitherto
it may have been the custom." It is true, that in many
places the use of it in common service had grown
obsolete, and that even how it is probably nowhere
used every Sunday ; there are Churches, at Berlin for
instance, where it is used at every Church festival,
(Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and many other days ;)
but has the Church of England " laid the Athanasian
Creed aside" because she does not use it every Sunday?
The Athanasian Creed is placed in our Agenda by the
side of the Nicene ; but I own I know not whether
it is practically used anywhere.
In a note you go so far as to say, it does not always
recite even the Apostles' Creed. If you have for this
assertion no better authority than the one to which you
refer, viz., that of the article from a German periodical,
quoted in your Appendix B, (which, however, does
not even say, that the German Church does not recite
it always, but only, that the English Church does recite
it in. each public service,) I would ask, is it fair, to
state as a positive fact in the body of the book, what
in an appendix you admit to be only an uncertain infer
ence of your own ? You will easily feel how much
more the positive unqualified assertion, in the body of
the book, "it does not always recite it," must weigh
with most of your readers, than the doubt contained
in the words, " it would seem, then," in the Appendix.
Now, with respect to the fact, I beg to observe that,
even before the introduction of the present liturgy, it
was in Prussia, and is to this day there, and I believe
in the whole of Protestant Germany, the regular sys
tem of the Church to have, not one, but three services
not "identically the same" (p. 114, Note f), but morn
ing and evening prayer, (consisting of prayers, hymns,

40
reading of Scripture, and a sermon,) and the solemn or
principal service, which took the place of the solemn
mass, and with which the communion generally was
connected. It is true, then, that in the early morning prayer,
and in the afternoon service, the Apostles' Creed was
and is not generally recited ; but it formed a regular
part of the principal service, for which you will find it
prescribed in all old authorized formularies of worship.
In many churches it was customary to be sung as a
hymn by the congregation (a practice which I am far
from approving of, as it does not admit of a literal
translation); in some, moreover, it was omitted alto
gether, in those sad days when the discipline of our
Church seemed nearly gone, but which, thank God,
are now gone themselves, whilst the discipline is con
tinually improving. In the present liturgy for Prussia,
it stands again an essential and integral part of the
regular service, to be used wherever that liturgy is
introduced. The character and practice of a Church
is to be determined, I think, by her authorized formu
laries and rules, not by the irregular or negligent prac
tice of individual clergymen.
The same formularies of our Church will also correct
any mistake as to the composition of our "weekly
service." The " Lutherans," and, indeed, all the Pro
testant bodies of Germany have always had stated,
fixed prayer (I must deprecate again any appeal to the
irregular practice of individuals from want of disci
pline); and of the liturgy now established throughout
the United Church of Prussia, stated prayers, mostly
taken from the ancient Church, and hearing of God's
word, form the chief and essential part, " prayer extem
pore" being allowed in addition to those at the
beginning and end of the sermon (where I am not

41
aware that the Church of England prohibits it) ; " un
inspired hymns and preaching," being so far from
unduly encroaching upon the liturgy, that the common
complaint has been rather that they have not been
allowed a due share in it ! I am persuaded that
you will bear witness yourself, that this liturgy con
tains all the essentials of divine service, confession of
sins, reading of Scripture, prayers of intercession,
prayers of thanksgiving, praise and surrendering of the
heart to God, as the lively and acceptable sacrifice.
It has been blamed for resembling too much the
Roman service, — most unjustly indeed ; for the resem
blance is only in what the Roman Missal has retained
of Catholic antiquity. The introit and other parts,
(for instance, those which stand instead of the Roman
gradual and offertory,) are, according to ancient custom,
varying with the seasons of the sacred year; and in all
the authorized editions of the Agenda, published sepa
rately for each province, with additions (not alterations)
from authorized provincial customs, you will find a
rich collection of materials for liturgical use, from
various ages of the Church, — prayers from the ancient
Greek liturgies, bearing the name of St. Basil and
Chrysostom, together with collects taken from the
Roman, from the English, from the Swedish Church,
as well as from our own reformers. And of these
authorized materials, without any arbitrary alteration
or addition, the liturgy for Germans in Jerusalem, to
which the Prelates of your Church have borne suffi
cient testimony, is composed ; so that it is difficult to
understand how it could possibly give offence either to
English or to Oriental Christians.
It can be only want of correct information when
you say (p. 114) that we have "scarcely any service
through the year besides that on the Lord's day ;" but

42
any catalogue of our holy days would have shown yo«,
that we have preserved all the festivals instituted by
the Church, that have any reference to Christ perso
nally ; in many parts of our Church the Apostles' days
are kept ; and so is St. John the Baptist's very gene
rally. It seems equally unknown to you, and may be
so in this country generally, that in many, I think I
may say in almost all towns, not only of Prussia, but
of all other parts of Germany, there is divine service
on every Friday; in most of them, as in many churches
at Berlin, every Wednesday too; yea, in many of them,
(I mention only Hamburgh, Breslau, some Hanoverian
towns, &c.,) divine service is performed every day. It
will not be difficult for the bishop to establish or preserve
the same practice among Germans at Jerusalem.
I trust he will not have any objection to their
" uninspired hymns." They are very dear to us,
although we are far from putting them on an equality
with the Psalms, as a part of inspired Scripture (of
which, however, many of them are only a paraphrase
not unworthy of the original) ; we think we have every
reason to be thankful for the rich treasure which God
has given us in them, and we look upon them as a
witness of spiritual life within our Church which it
will be difficult to controvert.
In our liturgy you will find an injunction to kneel
at the words of consecration ; it has been, and is still
very common in " Lutheran" Churches to receive the
eucharist kneeling. But I cannot attach any great
importance to either kneeling, standing, or sitting;
such things, indeed, ought not even to be mentioned
when the solemn question is raised whether Churches
ought to act and pray in communion with each other.
Article XXXIV. of your Church expressly allows
such differences, " so that all things be done to edify-

43
ing." Will our sitting at our hymns (p. ] 16) be very
much against edifying the Greek Christians ? I believe
not ; I do not even think that your kneeling at prayers
on Sundays will, although this is contrary to the Canon
of a General Council (Council of Nice, Can. 20), which
enjoins standing at prayers on Sundays, and which I
believe is followed by the Greek.
I will not deny that the Lord's Day is not, at
present, kept so holy in Germany (at least not in all
parts of it, for in some old towns it is, I believe,) as it
ought to be. This, however, is not a fault chargeable
upon our Church, which has always enjoined the Lord's
Day and other festivals to be kept holy, and is even
now making efforts to produce a greater sanctification
of that day, not by outward forcible measures, but by
her influence upon the minds * ; and as I anticipate
from these efforts and the general tone of feeling, very
beneficial results throughout Germany, so I do not
doubt that the bishop at Jerusalem will meet with every
facility, among German congregations, of improving
their habits, if it should be necessary, in this respect.
On page 132, you return to more general, yet very
positive, charges against the spirit of our Church ; and
here I can do nothing but contradict them in as
general and unqualified terms. You seem entirely to
forget that individual rationalist writers, be they clergy
men or laymen, are not the German Church ; whatever
their extravagances may have been, I confidently say,
we, the Church, do not regard the "Faith" as "suscep
tible of subsequent correction and development," but
* The whole clergy of Berlin, for instance, have only a short
time ago issued a very forcible address to their congregations on the
subject, in which they speak with the highest acknowledgment of
the practice of the Church of England ; and I am told that this has
produced already great effect.

44
we too receive it as "once for all delivered to the
saints," although we believe, with the Church of Eng
land, that particular Churches may err (Art. XIX.),
and their errors be corrected ; and, with you and all
teachers, that man's apprehension of that faith may be
developed*; — we do not boast ourselves modern, but,
without boasting, would suggest that the communion of
saints, which we confess with you in the creed, is as
ancient as God's revelation ; — we do not date ourselves,
either "truly" or untruly, from Luther, much as we
love and respect that truly great man ; — we do not
claim to be the parent of all Reformed Churches, — for
even though the Prussian Minister of State, whom you
quote, had made use of such inappropriate language, a
* Bishop Butler, the "judicious and immortal writer," Analogy,
part ii., c. 3, quoted in the Historical Enquiry, &c, part ii., ch. vi.,
p. 96, says in his beautiful language, " Practical Christianity, or
that faith and behaviour which renders a man a Christian, is a plain
and obvious thing : like the common rules of conduct with respect
to our ordinary temporal affairs. The more distinct and particular
knowledge of those things, the study of which the Apostle calls
going on to perfection, and of the prophetic parts of Revelation,
like many parts of natural and even civil knowledge, may require
very exact thought and careful consideration. The hindrances, too,
of natural and supernatural light and knowledge, have been of the
same kind. And as, it is owned, the whole scheme of Scripture is
not yet understood, so if it ever comes to be understood, before the
restitution of all things, and without miraculous interposition, it
must be in the same way as natural knowledge is come at ; by the
continuance and progress of learning and of liberty, and by particular
persons attending to, comparing and pursuing, intimations scattered
up and down it, which are overlooked and disregarded by the
generality of the world." And why should we now mistrust the
promise which the author of the Enquiry held out to us formerly
(part i., p. 1?6): "In the well-founded confidence, which past
experience has given to the German enquirer, there is a rich pro
mise, that the already commenced blending of belief and science,
without which science becomes dead and belief is exposed to dege
neracy, will be perfected beyond even the degree to which it was
realized in some of the noblest instruments of the earlier Refor
mation.''

45
Prussian Minister of State is no Church authority with
us ; yet that Prussian Minister of State has not brought
forward any such glaring absurdity, but, in speaking of
the " mother of all evangelic confessions, alluded only
to the undoubted fact that the great movement of the
Reformation originated in Germany, and that the
Augsburg Confession, as the first of all declarations of
return to the primitive faith of the Church, has greatly
influenced most others*; — we sympathize with all
branches of the Church of Christ that have retained
the foundations of Christianity ; we, therefore, do not
reject the Ancient Church of the East, and the very
facts which you allude to, namely, that of the refusal
of the Greek bishops to accept the hand tendered by
German divines f, shows that our German Churches
were at least as desirous as the English and Scotch
bishops were to enter into active communion with the
East, for they did neither more nor less than the
bishops in applying to the Eastern Churches ; and as
for the refusal they met with, did the English and
Scotch bishops not meet with the sarne^? And could
they expect anything else from bishops which had con
demned the doctrine of the Reformed Churches in
those very points in which it is the doctrine of the
Church of England too§; and had asserted against it
* I might have said, in particular the English Articles ; and
should have had for it the authority of the Hist. Enq., &c, part ii.,
p. 19, where I find that the Confession of Augsburg is "venerable
as the first Protestant Confession, as a monument of unshaken faith
in that period of difficulty and danger, no less than for the sake of
the great men who composed it, and dear to us (Englishmen) also,
as the source of much in our own Articles."
t See Palmer's Aids to Reflection, &c, p. 24. J lb., p. 31.
§ If we were apt to forget this, the Romanists would not let
us. They remind us of the fact even in popular tracts ; for instance,
in the Tract 42, of the " Catholic Institute of Great Britain,"
entitled Protestantism and the Churches in the East, where the
doctrine of that synod and of the Church of England are compared
with each other.

46
Romish doctrines, not only in the synod of Bethlehem
in 1672, but in two previous synods of 1638 and
1642? Not that I attach great importance to all
these synods ; I think they have very little claim to
represent "the Ancient Church of the East," and
could little understand or appreciate the doctrines they
condemned. A sad thing would it be if the claims of
the Church of England, or of our Church, or of any
Church, to that name rested on the acknowledgment
of such judges !
Hitherto I have mostly tried to show that our
Church is not what you suppose her to be. But when
you conclude by reproaching us with a desire " to
develop the peculiar character of our Church," and .
with a belief " that the diversities of Christ's worship,
according to tongues and races, are upheld (i e., based
upon and bound together) by a higher unity, — the
Lord of the Church himself," — I must plead guilty,
yea, I gladly admit and accept for our Church such a
reproach, knowing that we have on our side not only
the sense of the Ancient and Catholic Church, which,
in its pentecostal hymn, praises the Holy Ghost for
having, through (not " in spite of") the multiplicity of
tongues, united all nations in the worship and praise of
God, but also the authority of St. Paul, who declares
the diversity of gifts in individuals, (and nations and
National Churches are only comprehensive individuals
within the one Church Catholic,) to be essential to the
well-being, yea, to the very existence of the kingdom
of heaven on earth. We think it our duty to develop
our own peculiar character, as far as it is wrought in
us through the dispensations of God ; and we are fully
persuaded that, by losing our individuality, we should
lose our catholicity also !
I may apply here, partly at least, and as far as
regards the points which you have brought forward,

47
the words with which the Augsburg Confession sums up
in Article XXII. : " This is the substance of the doc
trine taught among us; in which it may be seen, that
there is nothing diverging from the Sacred Scriptures,
nor from the Church Catholic, nor from the Roman
Church, as far as she is known through her writers,"
meaning, of course, the primitive, uncorrupted Church
of Rome ; " and this being the case, they judge uncha
ritably that would have us declared heretics."
I wish I could conclude here ; but there is one
point more to which I must call your attention, and to
which I cannot advert without pain : — I allude to the
passage (p. 115,) in which you seem to accuse all
German candidates that will come to the Bishop of
Jerusalem for ordination, of double-mindedness and
insincerity. You say that they will " engraft the
XXXIX Articles on the Confession of Augsburg,
accepting either in so far as (quatenus) they indivi
dually found them to correspond with their views of
Holy Scripture." Now since, as you have yourself*
formerly told your countrymen, a clause to that effect
was never introduced into our formula of subscription,
and is no more used now in Prussia than it is in
England at subscription of the XXXIX Articles ;
since it is understood that, to use your own wordsf,
"subscription must not be left vague and indetermi
nate, but (in order to prevent, as much as possible,
dishonest evasion,) must be absolute and definite;"
meaning that we really deem what we subscribe alto
gether agreeable to Scripture : it is evident that your
words imply an unexpressed mental reservation, arising
from a doubt in the minds of subscribers whether Con
fession and Articles are Scriptural ; yea, I should almost
say, supposing a persuasion that they are not altogether
* Hist. Enquiry, part ii., ch. xi., p. 375, et seq.
t Ibid., part iii., p. 33.

48
so. Such subscribers would certainly be guilty of bad
faith, in apparently acknowledging without qualification
what inwardly they would acknowledge and believe
only with a qualification. Allowing such tampering
with the simple act of a declaration of belief, would
be particularly pernicious in our times. You would
be better sure of the right faith and teaching of clergy
men without any subscription at all, than with such
an one. Certainly neither the Augsburg Confession
nor the Articles are binding upon conscience as Scrip
ture is ; they are subject to Scripture, and contain
truth only as far as they agree with Scripture. But
whether they do so or not, it is every candidate's duty
to satisfy himself before subscription; if he is not
satisfied he will not subscribe. If he subscribes you
have no right to suppose that he is not, until his acts
give you proof. To suppose beforehand that he will
not be, and yet subscribe, is, to say the least, very
uncharitable. I have no hesitation, moreover, in say
ing, that wherever Confession or Articles leave any
doubt about their right interpretation, (which might
naturally be supposed in human Articles,) we certainly
must interpret them so as not to be contrary to Scrip
ture. If I am not mistaken, you and your friends say
that your Articles must be interpreted so as not to be
contrary to ancient catholicity. I will not enter into
any controversy upon this point ; but I may ask what
should you say if a German, impressed with what
would, I trust, be an erroneous, but might seem a
natural inference from such sayings in some of your
and your friends' writings, were to tell his countrymen
that most or many English clergymen " did accept the
Articles of their Church only in so far as (quatenus)
they individually found them to correspond with their
views of Catholic antiquity? Far be it from me to
make such an imputation. You see I have, in spite

49
of all that has been said against you, referred to your
Articles in their simple wording, without any fear that
you should evade my argument by interpretation or
qualification. For these Articles I am anxious to
express my highest respect ; to defend our own Con
fession against the charge of " unsoundness," (p. 128,)
would oblige me to enter into discussion of doctrinal
points which I feel it my duty to avoid. I can only
wish that it may be well known and read by your
countrymen; they have a full right to admit it only
" as far as they find it corresponding to Scripture."
With regard to our German subscribers, let me hope
that your imputation fell from you only in an unguarded
moment, and that you will think of my German
brethren that may go to Jerusalem to work in the
Lord's ancient vineyard, no more evil than they may
give you reason, for : " charity thinketh no evil."
This charity we claim of you as a right, and I
know you will not withhold it. I know you cannot
sympathize with us on many points ; but even you
will allow that there are still many and very important
points in which you can and do sympathize with us ;
and most happy, indeed, should I feel if my poor words
could have persuaded you that there are in our Church
some more points of sympathy than you imagined ;
and I have no doubt you would be glad yourself to
find this to be the case. If you find it so, if you can
persuade yourself that she is animated not by a sec
tarian but by a truly Catholic and Christian spirit,
your fears and apprehensions will, notwithstanding
minor differences, be diminished or removed. I would
only ask you, not to let your sympathies in another
direction, strong as they seem to be, (I have no right
nor wish to judge them,) draw you away from bre
thren whose hands are stretched out towards your
Church, and blind your eye against the light which
E

50
God may have given them for their, and_perhaps for
your benefit too.
In the picture you draw of the general state of
religion in Germany, (p. 122, et seq.,) you dwell more
upon the darkness that is past than upon the dawn
which you acknowledge to have come. I do not com
plain of that picture. It is exaggerated, but it is in
many respects true ; and we are willing, humbly and
cheerfully, to thank any one who sets our faults, our
defects, our real wants, before our eyes ; even though
it were done in a hostile spirit, not in charity, in which
I believe you have done it. You censure us, however,
rather harshly, in asserting that there is, even in our
sounder writers, not a vestige of humility, (p. 126,)
but rather an arrogant exaltation of our own body.
To such accusation what answer can be given ? Any
assertion of humility necessarily savours of pride; and
there are few things that I should be more afraid of
than what St. Paul warns the Colossians against : " a
show of wisdom in will worship and humility and neg
lecting of the body;" so we must herein trust to God
who reads the hearts of men. As for " exaltation of
our own body," I hope you will not give this name to
a vindication of the Catholic spirit of our Church.
Believe me, we do "assume no superiority to
your Church ;" we are not only willing to acknowledge
her as a true branch of the Church of Christ, but also
to give her all due praise for the many virtues and
graces which God has bestowed upon her. We rejoice
to see her practical influence growing from day to
day; her spiritual life increased within; her limits,
through your colonies, extended over regions long lost
in darkness and shadow of death. And as- for our
own Church, we humbly thank God for what He has
given us ; we praise Him for having made national
calamities and suffering, and no less the rise and growth

51
of a national spirit, and the victories and the restored
prosperity that followed the powerful exertions of this
spirit, alike serviceable to the promotion and increase
of religious life ; we rejoice that we have not been
disappointed when in times, which you and the Ger
man author from whom you quote, designate as times
of prostration and spiritual death, we trusted to the
power of the Word and Spirit of God to overcome all
other spirits, however powerful they might appear in
their weapons of learning, talent, and intelligence. In
this confidence our Church did not shrink from the
combat, — she called to her aid nothing but the inhe
rent power of divine truth ; and we see the fruits now
of the struggle, — learning, talent, intelligence, arrayed
on her side, and the Gospel no longer the privilege of
a few individuals, but (I think I am warranted in say
ing,) rooted in the very heart of the nation, and pro
claimed alike from the thrones of royalty and from the
chairs of philosophy. But with all that we do not
boast ; we are ready to acknowledge that we too, as
a body no less than as individuals, are still sinful,
have many self-inflicted wounds, many faults and
defects; we pray to God that He may forgive our
sins, heal our wounds, supply our defects, and lead us
on to greater light and increased strength; and we
shall be most thankful, if sister branches of the Church
Catholic will assist us with their prayers. Whether
sister Churches can do more than pray for us, it is not
for me to judge of. You speak of a gift which you
think your Church might impart to ours, and which yet
you would rather withhold from us at present, because
you think we should not appreciate it. (p. 125 sqq.)
Now, I have no authority nor power to tell you what
my countrymen think of Episcopacy, or whether they
have a desire for it or not,— no more so than the
author you refer to, of whom I know nothing more

52
than the name, but who, at all events, expresses only
his own Opinion. As for my opinion, I can only
appeal to the authority of our Church in her Confession.
I have above shown what regard for, and desire of,
Episcopacy is expressed in this Confession ; I have also
shown, that she does not think it absolutely necessary,
either to salvation or to the essence of a Church, since
she considers the divine commission of teaching the
truth, and administering the sacraments, to have been
given, not absolutely to one sacerdotal body of men,
but, in the first instance, to the whole Church, and
through her and in her to the whole ministry. Within
these limits, there may be a wide range of difference of
opinion about the authority and profitableness of Epis
copacy, as there was in the early Church, and, as it
appears to me, even among the fathers of your own
English Church. And what may be the prevalent
view in Germany now, I have here no means of ascer
taining. But one thing let me plainly tell you ;
namely, that you certainly must never expect us to
come to you or to any other Church, for the gift of
Episcopacy, as imparting to our ministry a divine com
mission which they had not had before ; never expect
us to come and beg to be made a Church, as not having
been one before ; never expect us to deny the blessings
attendant upon our preaching of the Gospel, or the
reality of our sacraments. We should thereby deny
not our country, not our fathers, yea, not our Church
only, but our Lord and Master and his Spirit, — that
Spirit which worketh through the word and the sacra
ments, and which has visibly been working in Germany,
— it is a fearful thing to sin against the Holy Spirit !
And what you feelingly say of those who forsake your
Church, (p. 15,) " For any one who, placed within a
Church, has experienced God's guidance and the opera
tion of his Holy Spirit on his heart, to forsake the

53
Church wherein God dealt so graciously with him, and
showed his merciful care for his soul : it does seem so
ungrateful a disavowal of God's past mercies to him,
sucli a cutting off of all his past existence as a member
of Christ's Church, as to make it very painful to think
of those who, having been placed within our Church,
are being tempted to forsake or have forsaken her who
has the Apostolic succession in this land ;" would fall
with tenfold weight upon us, if we thus did cut off,
not our own individual past existence as members of
the Church, but the past existence of our Church
herself as a Church of Christ! if we thus did not
forsake, but deny and put to shame, yea, annihilate her
who has, in her ministry, an Apostolical succession and
a Divine commission for the word and sacraments in
our land!
As for the question, whether Episcopacy, in its true
ancient, catholic meaning, as not ojiposing itself to,
but incorporating and concentrating the ministry, as
embodying not the servitude but the freedom of the
Church, as a means not of excluding but of connecting
Churches, would be a desirable thing to be established
now in Germany with the sisterly assistance of your or
any other Episcopal Church : this it is not for me to
decide ; I leave it to men of more weight and autho
rity than I can claim. But, I believe I may say of
your apprehensions about Episcopacy being likely to
be obtruded upon such as cannot appreciate it, that
they are wholly unfounded. We shall not allow it to
be obtruded upon us as " an outward mechanism;" if
we regard it as such, we shall have nothing to do with
it. It is not in the character either of our Church or
our nation to accept or allow anything as an outward
mechanism, foreign to the spirit of the Church or
nation ; it is rather a characteristic of each to admit
outward forms only when embodying spirit and life,

54
and to deem an attachment to them as mere forms,
superstitious. And allow me to say that, as long as
you put Episcopacy before us merely as an outward
necessity, as a binding law (is not that an outward
mechanism?), as a ground and means of exclusiveness,
and as a wall to check the free stream of life, not as
a channel to direct and strengthen its course; as a
chain to tie up the free grace of God, not as a means
of imparting it more freely; as a substitute for, not as
the natural embodying of the mind, the soul, and the
conscience of the Church: you will never persuade
us to accept it ; you will induce us to turn away from
it, nay, to protest against it. If you would have us
wish or ask for it, you must show us that there is
spirit and life in it ; that there is power in it, not the
power only of coercing and binding, but of loosing,
and of making free and of giving life ; you must prove
to us that it does not narrow but enlarge the Church,
by realizing her idea more perfectly than any other
form does; that with it and through it the Church
will have freedom and liberty to move and to work and
to develope all her powers ; that it isa means of union,
first within every nation, and then beyond the limits of
nations and National Churches ; and, above all, that it
does not come in as a mediator between man and his
God or his Saviour, so as to hinder their immediate
communion and union, but that it will be an organ for
the expression, for the development, for the increase
and strengthening of that union ! That would be taking
high ground indeed for Episcopacy; and upon some
such ground, I suspect, Episcopacy stood in the ancient
Church. If it does really stand upon such ; if it is
thus intimately connected with the ideal perfection
of the Church, then, and then only, can we think
of it as desirable, for then it would not take away
from us, but in truth and reality enrich us. And this

55
it will be for you to prove, for us conscientiously to
examine. But all, I am convinced, will readily concur in the
belief which you express (p. 129), that "there are
things, at all events, far more important than Episco
pacy;" and that even in these highest and most impor
tant things we have still much to learn, much to im
prove ; that we want, individually and in common as a
body, more strength of faith, more warmth of love, more
cheerfulness of hope! But we do not think that our
Church is responsible, as you wrould make her, for the
unsoundness, or the errors, or the sins, of her individual
members ; and precisely therefore I would implore with
you (p. 128), His Grace the Archbishop, and all the
Prelates of the English Church, to inquire into the real
state, and spirit, and character of our Church ; not into
the state of mind of every individual member in her,
for you know well that this would be impossible ; not,
therefore, whether the Creeds are confessed from the
heart by every clergyman or every professor, but whe
ther they form an essential and characteristic part of
the Church's formularies, and of that discipline and
teaching by which she trains and forms the minds of
her children. Let the Bishop at Jerusalem avail him
self of every means that he has, to satisfy himself of
the sincerity of the candidates that will present them
selves to him ; let the English Church satisfy herself,
by the means she has, of the character of our Church
as a Church ; but let her not allow herself to judge
the children of her sister ! That would, indeed, be
assuming a superiority over her! And against such
superiority we should certainly deem ourselves in duty
bound to protest, as we did against the superiority of
Rome. We desire that all branches of the Church
Catholic may walk on peacefully in the way which
God in his providence has traced for them, and in the

56
light which He has been pleased to afford them. Let
them walk on in their way, as far as they can see it,
joyful in the belief that, though to a human eye these
ways may appear different, they are in reality one, as
with one beginning, so with one end, in Him who is
" the way, the truth, and the life." But let them
never refuse, when opportunity offers, to join hands, to
walk together and to work together for the glory of
their Lord and the extension of his kingdom ; — then,
and then only, they may cheerfully wait for the glad
tidings of peace !
Pious men of a hopeful mind, such as becomes the
Christian, thought that in these days such an opportu
nity offered, and that with it a distant but cheering
sound of such tidings came as on "the wings of the
morning." Oh ! let us be careful on all sides not to
overhear the still feeble voice from mistrust, nor to
drown it in the jarring notes of discord necessarily
following distrust, but let us cheerfully look up, and
listen, and trust !
And with this hope and these wishes let me take
leave of you in peace. May I be allowed to hope that
my words have been, what I sincerely intended them
to be, words of peace to you and to all ! And may the
peace of the Lord be with you, with your and with
our Church, and with the Holy Church Catholic !
I remain, Reverend Sir,
With great esteem,
Yours,
London, Monday before Easter, H. ABEKEN.
1842.

LONDON: HARRISON AND CO., PRINTERS, ST. MARTIN'S LANE.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY